greater resolution as an end in itself ??

I agree that resolution unveils system shortcomings but I remember also my old inexpensive system 20 years ago that required constant tone adjustment because nothing sounded right - one CD too bright while the other too bassy. Now with better gear everything sounds about right. I don't have tone controls but don't feel I need them - why?

It's both, or neither, or one or the other depending on one's perspective and preferences.

Maybe the true perfect solution is owning a forgiving player and a resolving player, thus affording a choice depending on the quality of the recording.

Then again, that's what EQ is for...

About ten years ago I got to "the end" of the resolution chase with a certain system. Woodwind pads clicking, chairs squeaking, bad caps in mixing consoles, horrible sounding digital artifacts, poor splices, etc, etc.

I had a fairly nice album and cd collection that was then about 80% unlistenable/unenjoyable. I don't know that there is one answer, but I'll never go for resolution at the expense of a "musical" sounding system (whatever that means!).

I think there's a lot more to it than what appears on the surface. What many folks equate with "greater resolution" is simply tilted up or peaky treble response. There are also cable and component combinations that together produce a kind of hyper-detailed, but not musically accurate or satisfying sound. Then there are room nodes, reflections, and cancellations to deal with -- not to mention things like failure to ensure clean power to your component chain (which has it's own set of undesireable effects).

In any given system, there are varying degrees of all of the above (and more). But I suppose it's easiest just to put a label like "too resolving" on it and/or assign blame to the offending recording(s), and call it a day...

Mr. Tennis

Having reviewed all the equipment being discussed I find that your are correct.